Starship Asterisk*

What would radiation levels be like on a planet near the center of a globular cluster? Would there be constant auroras on such a planet? Would the planet be hospitable to life as we know it? Oceans would provide some protection, but would land-based complex life forms be exposed to high levels of radiation?

Zuben L. Genubi wrote:
What would radiation levels be like on a planet near the center of a globular cluster? Would there be constant auroras on such a planet? Would the planet be hospitable to life as we know it? Oceans would provide some protection, but would land-based complex life forms be exposed to high levels of radiation?

The light levels at night would be comparable to that of a full moon.

Each planet would exist in a honeycomb of heliospheres and receive its aurora solely from its own local sun.

starsurfer wrote:

Boomer12k wrote:Awesome... too bad I am not in the southern hemisphere... but then I CAN rent a scope in Australia, I suppose...hmmmmmm.....

:---[===] *

How about renting a scope in Chile?

Another Fine Choice...

:---[===] *

Chris Peterson wrote:

Ann wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote: We have a very, very good idea what light is.

Photons. Massless particles of a certain wavelength.

Photons. Particles with a rest mass of zero and a certain momentum (or energy).

Thanks for setting me straight, Chris!

Ann

Chris Peterson wrote:

Fred the Cat wrote:All those suns emitting all that light and we can’t even say what light is.

We have a very, very good idea what light is.

I’d agree that light can be described and its characteristics are well known but its quantum nature doesn’t behave like anything familiar to us in our everyday experience. To have to explain a photon as an “epiphenomenon” begs for a primary description not requiring a PhD to comprehend or explain.

Yes, I’d agree light is better understood than I stated but would hope light's duality could be shown pragmatically.

Fred the Cat wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:

Fred the Cat wrote:All those suns emitting all that light and we can’t even say what light is.

We have a very, very good idea what light is.

I’d agree that light can be described and its characteristics are well known but its quantum nature doesn’t behave like anything familiar to us in our everyday experience. To have to explain a photon as an “epiphenomenon” begs for a primary description not requiring a PhD to comprehend or explain.

Yes, I’d agree light is better understood than I stated but would hope light's duality could be shown pragmatically. :ninja: :arrow: :ssmile:

You are falling victim to the Billiard Ball Fallacy: the belief that the Universe should work in a way we find intuitive (like the way the balls move on a billiard table). In fact, the Universe is under no such obligation. At both large and small scales, it behaves in a way that is different from the scale our brains and senses evolved to operate at.

The theory, which we understand very well, offers no difficulty with particle-wave duality at all. Thus, we understand this part of the Universe. That it seems odd is really of no consequence.

Billions and billions...